An Essay Concerning the Nature of Economics. Part I

The Properties of the Universe Resulting in Economics as a Useful Descriptive Framework of Human Action.

Insofar as we may exist in a universe of finite space and time; insofar different space and time combinations may impress upon us more or less agreeable internal states, and insofar as we have the capacity to alter space time combinations, only then, we shall have economics. 

Let us investigate the nature of each assertion and the truth we can attribute to it. 

What would the world look like without finite space and time, we must first consider what is the nature of space and time. I refer to space, everything with which one's physical autonomy can interact with (including one's own body). This spatial dimension governs what volume of the universe one can occupy, and this, as we can actually experience it, is limited. If one occupies space coordinates x1 y1 z1, then, it is impossible for another to occupy x1 y1 z1 coordinates simultanously. In the case of time, an event v1 which ocurrs in time t1, prevents event v1 to have occurred in a different way in time t1. The universe of possibilities for event v (v1 to v ininite) to have played out is determined once time1 has passed. Finite time forces infite possibilities (v1 to v infinite) to become a finite actuality (v1). 

Without finite time, the universe of infinite possibilities, would all exist as actualities. Without finite space, one would exist everywhere. Logically, one may imagine this universe as a supreme being, existing as all infinite possibilities and actualities, at once, everywhere. What capacity would this supreme being have to act, for its nature is one where it is everything that is possible, always, and forever. Scarcity of space and time, thus, forces infinite possibilities, to become one spatial actuality.

Different combinations of said space and time may exist, these different combinations impress upon man, internal states of more agreeable or disagreeable nature, let us refer to this, as internal states of ease or unease. 

What I refer to with internal states is the universe of thoughts, emotions, perceptions, and intuitions which consciously or unconsciously play out within a person. It matters not if one calls this the soul, the self, the individual, for it is not the concern of economics to explore the nature of such, this would be within the domain of theological and psychological studies. We are merely concerned that such internal states can be more or less at ease or unease, in pleasure and pain, comfort and discomfort, desirable and undesirable.

It is the result that man finds his internal state at ease or unease whereupon if he may have the capacity, he takes it upon himself to change the combination of space and time to alter his internal state. It is important to emphasise the distinction between acting to change the external or internal state. Individuals whom through an act of internal transformation are able to achieve an internal state of ease (e.g., nirvana) is not within the domain of economics to explain, there may be a debate as to whether it is more appropriate to alter one's internal ease or unease through internal or external changes, it is not however, the role of economics to explain how this internal transformation ought to come about (again, this is relegated to other disciplines e.g., theology and psychology). 

Economics, thus, is not concerned about internal transformations that result in changes to one's ease or unease. It is concerned with the consequences of being at ease or unease in bringing about actions that alter the current combination of space time into a different combination of space and time with the goal of bringing about a more desirable internal state. It goes without saying that this hinges upon the capacity to bring about change in the external universe, without the capacity to bring about change, nothing would in fact change, outside of the consequences of physical laws governing the relationship of matter. 

It is important to mention that economics per se, has no stake in the debate of free will, this again, is relegated to other disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience. This is not to say, that free will does not matter in the descriptive capabilities of economics, as a world with free will could conceivably make predictive sciences concerning human action more difficult than in a deterministic universe. These subtle differences however do not change the fundamental basis of the discipline, that disagreeable internal states, result in actions to change space time combinations, that is oriented towards bringing about a more agreeable internal state.   

It is conceivable that one day, physical sciences may advance to such an extent, that all phenomena is predictable, in which case, economics as a disicpline with explanatory power may disappear, the same way, theology as a discipline able to explain the functioning of the cosmos, became less powerful with the advent of the physical sciences in the 17th century. However, until then, economics may remain a useful analytical tool to describe certain actions.

As currently defined, economics may be able to describe the actions of all living organisms that exist within finite space time, experience ease and unease, and have the ability to change the combination of space time. Cells, plants, animals all engage in actions to change space time to bring about a more desirable internal state. It is possible to conceive of non-organic beings (artifical intelligence) as also being able to engage in actions such that can be explained through economics. 

It is only when we introduce conscious, reasoned, and deliberate choice that we encounter a unique version of alterations to space time, one most readily observed in human beings. Conscious choice allows us to consider space time combinations that take place over many time periods, this allows us to prioritise states of ease or unease much further into the future than is observed in other life forms. Reasoned choice, also allows for a much more power calculus when considering the potential combinations of space time outcomes. This allows a unique form of descriptive economics that is applicable to the choices of man which we shall consider in more detail in the Essay. 

These assertions about the properties of the universe brings about economics as a descriptive tool to explain why certain space time combinations arise from the actions of man, instead of others, by appealing to man enganging in activities to alter the combination of space time in a reasoned, conscious, and deliberate manner, as a reaction to internal states of ease or unease. It has been shown that any changes to these properties of the universe would make economics no longer a useful descriptive framework.